Alan Caruba's blog is a daily look at events, personalities, and issues from an independent point of view. Copyright, Alan Caruba, 2015. With attribution, posts may be shared. A permission request is welcome. Email acaruba@aol.com.

Saturday, April 11, 2015

Avoiding Hillary Misery

By Alan Caruba

While we
endure the daily lies of President Obama, do we really want to have another
four to eight years more of Hillary Clinton’s? It’s not like we don’t have
ample evidence of her indifference to the truth and that is not what America
wants in a President, now or ever.

The office
has already been degraded to a point where neither our allies nor our enemies
trusts anything Obama says. Do we really want to continue a process that could
utterly destroy our nation?

Hillary
Clinton’s announcement that she intends to run for President is predicated not
on any achievements in her life beyond having married Bill Clinton. Instead,
her message is that America needs a woman as President. Having already elected
an abject failure because he was black, one can only hope and pray that enough
voters will conclude that America needs to avoid race or gender to be the
determining factor.

In 1974
the 27-year old Hillary was fired from a committee related to the Watergate
investigation. Jerry Zeifman, a lifelong Democrat, supervised her and when the
investigation was over, he fired her and refused to give her a letter of
recommendation. When asked why, he said, “Because she was a liar. She was an
unethical, dishonest lawyer. She conspired to violate the Constitution, the
rules of the House, the rules of the committee, and the rules of
confidentiality.”

She has
not changed. Writing about her emails, Ronald D. Rotunda, a professor at
Chapman University’s Fowler School of Law, said her admitted destruction of
more than 30,000 emails “sure looks like an obstruction of justice—a serious
violation of the criminal law. The law says that no one has to use email, but it
is a crime (18 U.S.C. section 1519) to destroy even one message to prevent it
from being subpoenaed.” The law, said Rotunda, punishes this with up to 20
years imprisonment.

Instead,
Hillary is asking voters to give her at least four years in the highest office
in the land.

Even
pundits like The New York Times’ Maureen Dowd, writing in mid-March responded
to Hillary saying “None of what you said made any sense. Keeping a single
account mingling business and personal with your own server wasn’t about
‘convenience.’ It was about expedience. You became judge and jury on what’s relevant
because you didn’t want to leave digital fingerprints for others to retrace.”

“You
assume that if it’s good for the Clintons, it’s good for the world, you’re
always tangling up government policy with your own needs, desires, deceptions,
marital bargains, and gremlins.”

Around the
same time as Dowd’s rebuke, I wrote that I thought that the revelations about
the emails and the millions the Clinton foundation received from nations with
whom she was dealing as Secretary of State would be sufficient for those in
charge of the Democratic Party to convince her not to run. I was wrong. I was
wrong because I profoundly underestimated Hillary’s deep well of ambition and
indifference to the laws everyone else must obey. I was wrong because the
Democratic Party is totally corrupt.

It is not
as if anyone paying any attention would not know that she is politically to the
far Left, a politician who does not believe that the powers of our government
are derived from “the consent of the governed.” Throughout her life she has let
us know that with quotes such as:

“We’re
going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good.”

“(We)
can’t just let business as usual go on, and that means something has to be
taken away from some people.”

“I certainly think the
free-market has failed.” These quotes are the personification of Communism.

In March,
the political pundit, Peggy Noonan, writing in The Wall Street Journal, said
“We are defining political deviancy down.” Referring to the email scandal, she
asked “Is it too much to imagine that Mrs. Clinton wanted to conceal the record
of her communications as America’s top diplomat…?”That was the reason she ignored the
government’s rules regarding such communications. Rarely mentioned is the very
strong likelihood that her email account had been hacked by our nation’s
enemies and thus everything she was doing, officially and privately, was known
to them.

“The
story,” said Noonan “is that this is what she does and always has. The rules
apply to others, not her.” That is, simply said, a criminal mentality. “Why
doesn’t the legacy press swarm her on this?” asked Noonan. “Because she is
political royalty.”

We fought
a Revolution to free America from the British royalty. This was so ingrained in
the thinking of the Founding Fathers that section 9 of Article One of the
Constitution says “No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States.
And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without
the Consent of Congress, accept any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of
any kind whatever from any King, Prince, or foreign State.” That’s what the
foundation did.

Noonan had
earlier written a book about Hillary. “As I researched I remembered why, four
years into the Clinton administration, the New York Times columnist William
Safire called Hillary ‘a congenital liar…compelled to mislead, and to ensnare
her subordinates and friends in a web of deceit.’”

“Do we
have to go through all that again?” asked Noonan. “A generation or two ago, a
person so encrusted in a reputation for scandal would not be considered a
possible presidential contender. She would be ineligible. Now she is
inevitable.”

Well,
maybe not inevitable. We have a long time to go until the primaries arrive and
then the election. We have enough time to ask ourselves if we live in a
republic where merit, integrity, and honesty are still the standards by which
we select our President.

3 comments:

It has been my unvarying experience, over the past 43 years as an adult allowed to vote for President, that the standard for the majority of voters is not honesty, or a true character, but charm. Presidential elections are beauty, or charm, contests--and too many are charmed by (supposed) ideological purity, in addition to visual attractiveness, and don't forget mainstream media prejudice (which is allowed to define the reigning political correctness at any given time).

About Me

I am and have been for a long time a writer by profession. I have several books to my credit and my daily column, "Warning Signs", is disseminated on many Internet news and opinion websites, as well as blogs. In addition, I am a longtime book reviewer and have a blog offering a monthly report on new fiction and non-fiction.